I have a counter/corollary(?) to the idea that often people don't know what they don't know or assume that their surface knowledge can accurately understand a field, and they should stop making such bold statements:
If an executive with some great new idea or strategy not grounded in the full detail were to pay attention to the all the details, they might never try or get anything new done. Because if you listen to and empathize with all the details of how complicated something is and how there's this subtlety or that follow-on issue, you start to accept all the reasons it can't be done (either at all, or quickly). So in some cases, you only get progress because of persisting in ignorance that you can do something new that breaks the rules.
Of course I don't mean doing something that is structurally or physically impossible -- just in cases where the legacy of "why it can't be done" has created inertia that stops progress if you accept it a little too much.
If an executive with some great new idea or strategy not grounded in the full detail were to pay attention to the all the details, they might never try or get anything new done. Because if you listen to and empathize with all the details of how complicated something is and how there's this subtlety or that follow-on issue, you start to accept all the reasons it can't be done (either at all, or quickly). So in some cases, you only get progress because of persisting in ignorance that you can do something new that breaks the rules.
Of course I don't mean doing something that is structurally or physically impossible -- just in cases where the legacy of "why it can't be done" has created inertia that stops progress if you accept it a little too much.